User talk:Tealwisp/Archive 1

Subpages[edit]

I see you're working on an article in your user page. You might find it easier to create a sub page, like User:Tealwisp/List of Space Marine Chapters, to hold it instead. It's easier to keep everything separate that way. My apologies if I'm telling you something you already know. Pagra shtak 16:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copy-and-paste you've done of List of Space Marine Chapters doesn't retain that article's edit history. I proposed something to that list's talk page, but before you whack more at that list, I'd suggest moving the article entirely -- so that its contribution history remains intact as you revise it. Anyway, more details as I said on the talk page. Putting a note here just so you get the big ol' orange banner. --EEMIV (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips, both of you. Tealwisp 05:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've deleted your subpage as you requested, but I'd hold off on moving for now until it's discussed on the talk page more. I don't want to go from a revert war to a move war. Pagra shtak 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Space Marines[edit]

Thank you SO MUCH for your help. I've changed the redirect to point to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) while you are working on the draft copy. the 40K project will be better for your work. Protonk (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that many chapter-specific articles have been changed to redirects, so you may want to include the relevant info instead of just linking to a "main article" that no longer exists. -- DataSnake _{my talk} 15:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey Tealwisp, I read through your draft for a list of chapters and It looks comprehensive; however I don't think It's appropriate for wikipedia as It does nothing for non-fans (try the warhammer 40k wiki). posting it would just give cunningham a field day in his anti-fancruft rampage. Jarrik32 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the list in its current state: the draft is not mine. As it is right now, the chapters were added periodically by users, and they accumulated, getting out of hand to the point where one could not find the truly notable chapters, which brings us to the present. I want to pare it down to the notable chapters only, but I don't know enough Space Marine lore to know which are notable aside from those with codices and such chapters as Legion of the Damned. I was hoping you would be able to tell me which ones we should keep. Once we know which are useful to have, cutting the list down should be easy. I think we also need to establish some general criteria for their inclusion. Furthermore, I don't think Thumperward will have much weight if he wants to redirect or delete the article, given the discussion that lead to consensus about redoing the article. Tealwisp (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

I'm replying here. Help:Archiving a talk page goes through it. Create a talk subpage and then copy/paste the content to be archived there. Add the {{Talkarchive}} to the top and bottom (the navigational templates discussed at the help pages can be added later) and save that page. Then make an archive box on the main talk page (in your case, the first "sub-talk page", or the talk page that used to be for the article) and the link should show up there. Alternately, you can make the archive box first and then follow the red link for the first archive to make the archive itself. It isn't hard once you do it a few times. If you don't want to do it, I can do it (nothing physically prevents me from making new sub-pages in your userspace). Protonk (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan[edit]

Tealwisp – I’ve responded to your suggestion that the Bob Dylan article be ‘split into multiple articles’ on the Bob Dylan Talk Page [[1]] . I’ve argued that, since Bob Dylan is a Featured Article, and has been vetted and assessed several times, it should not be ‘split into multiple articles’ unless a clear majority of editors agree with this proposal. Perhaps you could spell out on the Talk page why you think Bob Dylan should be ‘split into multiple articles’. And exactly what ‘multiple articles’ are you proposing? best wishes Mick gold (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the notifications on the Bob Dylan FAR per the intructions at the top of WP:FAR. You can see a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rudyard Kipling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates[edit]

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Current}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:58 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Cartman's religion[edit]

Hiya Tealwisp! You undid my little warning earlier on the Cartman article. The reason why I did this was because lately users - mostly anonymous - were changing the religion bit back and forth. Perhaps you can provide a good solution? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 09:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about a good solution, I think we may want to simply put it as "Christian." I had set it that way while the discussion was ongoing, since it can't be disputed that Cartman at least considers himself some form of Christian, given his repeated references to Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ. Do you know if protection can be applied to a single section rather than the whole page? I think if we simply protected the info box, we could put this issue to rest. In retrospect, however, removing the segment may actually be better, since Cartman's religion has never been a major part of his character aside from that fact that he is Christian, and then only to catalyze his ripping on Kyle for being Jewish. Tealwisp (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'll probably won't get protected, just based on that ground. Can we as "normal" Wikipedians protect infoboxes? I agree with you, I don't think his religion doesn't matter at all in the series, but apparently for some people it does. Good editing! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section protection[edit]

It is possible to protect an infobox, but not in the way I think you want. You can protect the underlying code, but it wouldn't stop anyone from changing the parameters used in the article, which is what I think you're after. So, short answer—no, sorry. Pagra shtak 13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Thanks for that. And doubly so because you put it right in the barnstar page! It was hard to find those sources, at least partially (as you see in the titles), the journalists who wrote the stories are not good about talking about Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 as two separate entities. Even the scholarly journal article says Warhammer but means 40K (with pictures of Tyranids and everything). Tonight or tomorrow night I'm going to go through my 3rd ed rulebook (the only 40K book I still own) and fill in some gameplay/history gaps. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags on Embalming Chemicals[edit]

Ok, Tealwisp, you win. You managed to insert an helpful and insightful (and witty!) comment on the Embalming Chemicals entry, despite being on wikibreak for purposes of doing schoolwork at the time. Bravo! I can't possibly compete with your barnstar shaq-fu and I won't even try.

You're right, I don't have a cite. That's because there were no extant references on the subject the last time this came up (circa 2006). Unfortunately, if we take all the truths without any extant references off Wikipedia today, Wikipedia would really suck starting tomorrow. But -- again you're right -- it's official policy. Which is why, unless you can find references created since 2006 documenting this stuff (not that you would attempt to look yourself or anything), the entire section on confusion with PCP should be removed.

Or, if you wanted to be a real Wikipedian, you'd roll it back to what was there before my 2006 edits. Because there are plenty of extant references stating that embalming fluid is PCP, contains PCP, has the same pharmacological effects as PCP, etc., complete with lab results, statements from ER physicians, and of course, confessions of people busted for illegal drug use. -Carl

Tau tech article[edit]

I have a copy in my userspace, and you are welcome to work on it if you are still interested. -- DataSnake _{my talk} 15:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar[edit]

Thanks a lot! If you get a chance, can you look into the peer review for the 40K page? When my finals wind down, I'm going to dig into the article but it could really benefit from some changes and attention by other editors. User:Jappalang gave some exceptional comments there and I think fixing the things he points out will be critical to getting that article to FA. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge templates[edit]

I used exactly the right merge templates: mergeto and mergefrom. No mistakes were made. Badagnani (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that two of them (but not the third) seem to have had the wrong name in the merge tags (though the tags themselves were correct). It's fixed now. Badagnani (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bundy[edit]

First of all, thanks for nominating the article for good article, but it's not there yet. There are a lot of unsourced facts and some quotes still left to be cited and it is dangerously close to being too long for the taste of GA reviewers. I had nominated Charles Manson some time ago and it was in far better shape than Bundy, but it was too long and too involved for the GA reviewers, although it, in my view, is just an excellent article. I'm not suggesting it be pulled from consideration, but I thought I'd let you know that from past experience, it won't pass. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Tealwisp. You have new messages at Unpopular Opinion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your revert.[edit]

I did not say that the quote isn't taken from the movie. I said the quote has been along long before the movie. Taemyr (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that produce any problem? If you think it should be attributed to a different source, especially a real one, then by all means, change the article. I'd even back you. Tealwisp (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Octopus and Ebony White[edit]

Do you care if these two are redirected again for now? The current information is covered, and you agree that a character list is probably unnecessary, so they won't need any extensive coverage unless new sources are found. TTN (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd be alright with it, but I'd feel better if we at least held a discussion on a project page. Tealwisp (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else with valid concerns reverts them, I'll start a up a discussion somewhere. TTN (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

No problem, if you want to redirect to sour cherry, its fine. I just basically thougt that sour cherry and cherry are a completely different fruit and there is a good description of cherry soup there, in the Soup article, under Fruit soup, (Cherry soup, made with wine and no cream, a different kind of soup.) I thougt that some day somebody will write about that soup and until than they can read about it there. But it is not a big deal, do as you wish! Merry Christmas

Warrington (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to ward off the notability jackals?? Sure, you need some amulets against those... You are funny, you know that?

Yeah, that is the soup. Unfortunately I do not know anything about its origin or the countries they cook it. French, I guess. Or Basque?

Would you like to create an article about it?

Warrington (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Than go ahead. And include this to, or take a look at this too, French Cherry soup: [2][3] and [4].

Warrington (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more note

about the cherry tree (Prunus in latin)

(species -> subspecies->cultivars)

Sweet cherry is the Prunus species called Prunus avium, the cherry tree to which different subspecies belong, e.g. subspecies avium duracin and avium juliana with the respective cultivars (e. g. juliana cultivars which are called 'Guigne d'Annonay', 'Elton', 'Frogmore Early', 'Knauff's Riesenkirsche', 'Merton Glory' and 'Valeska) and the Sour Cherry is a different tree, a Prunus species Prunus cerasus.

Warrington (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User:Happyman19[edit]

Well, that's a good question. Most likely because I reverted his first edit, and all subsequent edits. But that's just how it goes...Cheers. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 08:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony White[edit]

Thanks for understanding. In all seriousness and respect, I appreciate your understanding, as a fellow Wiki editor, that something as significant as a merge discussion can't be had solely by two editors on one of those editors' personal talk pages. I'll notify the WPC Notice Board and editors involved in the two articles. -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bromine[edit]

Just a reminder to check for helpful revisions that occurred since the point to which you want to rollback. You should try to incorporate those after your rollback. In the case of Bromine, there were only three revisions since the version you wanted to rollback to, one of which included my edit that just corrected the spelling of "essential". In general, keep up the good work. No reply needed. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frogman in Japanese[edit]

Please see the end of the section Talk:Frogman#Does anyone know Japanese? Inappropriate interwiki link?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Fig (band)[edit]

Tealwisp, I am uncertain as to why you placed this message on my talk page. Djbaniel (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion notification was so that you would be warned about the impending deletion of the article. It is part of the Twinkle software that automatically completes notifications. You don't need to worry about the notification, as the article has been deleted already. Tealwisp (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming[edit]

Please don't welcome every single new account. Wait for them to make edits first, otherwise it's kinda pointless. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer to mediate, where is it?[edit]

Your offer to mediate, go on. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the arguments are here An appeal. Yezidis make a statement: The denial of honour to the Yezidis. Please take your time, please go through all the links in detail. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Sheikh Adi is He an historical person, looks like he was not

Yogesh Khandke (talk)